An excerpt from the article:
Europeans in China, whether British, American, or Australian, remained Europeans. ‘Their attitudes towards the Chinese could be complex and contradictory, entangled . . . in the [foreigners] sense of superiority as well as their own cultural and gender identity.’ Although many adopted Chinese costume missionaries were well aware that they did not become Chinese simply by adopting outward Chinese customs. In the Treaty Ports, in particular, the foreign expatriate community encouraged the maintenance of European modes of conduct even if the morality of many business people left a good deal to be desired as far as the missionaries were concerned. All missionaries had to spend their first year learning the local Chinese dialect. It was a key task for the single women whose employment was centred on itinerating in the villages of inland China. Amy Oxley wrote:Language: It is difficult and I do need the grace of God to learn it. I have a teacher, Ding Sing Ang,and I study between four and five hours a day. No one does more without in the end breaking down. It makes me feel very tired and not inclined for letter writing.The vast majority of the population of Fujian Province and virtually all the women and children had not seen foreigners before their villages were ‘invaded’ by missionaries. As Christian evangelistic activity spread throughout inland China after 1860 missionaries found rural society to be profoundlyconservative and in the case of women, almost totally uninformed about life beyond the confines of the local village.
The Yangzhouriot of August 22-23, 1868 was a brief crisis in Anglo-Chinese relations during the late Qing Dynasty. The crisis was fomented by the gentry of Yangzhou who opposed the presence of foreign Christian missionaries in the city, who claimed that they were legally residing under the provisions of the Convention of Peking. Threats against the missionaries were circulated by large character posters placed around the city. Rumors followed that the foreigners were stealing babies and killing them to make medicine.
The riot that resulted was an angry crowd of Chinese estimated at eight to ten thousand who assaulted the premises of the BritishChina Inland Mission in Yangzhou by looting, burning and attacking the missionaries led by Hudson Taylor. No one was killed, however several of the missionaries were injured as they were forced to flee for their lives.
As a result of the report of the riot, the British consul in Shanghai, Sir Walter Henry Medhurst took seventy Royal marines in a Man of war and steamed up the Yangtze River to Nanjing in a controversial show of force that eventually resulted in an official apology from the Chinese government under ViceroyZeng Guofan and financial restitution made to the C.I.M. as well as the restoration of the house that they had purchased in the city. Hudson Taylor and other Christian missionaries in China at that time were often accused of using gunboats to spread the gospel. However, none of the missionaries had requested or desired the military intervention[1].
The Yangzhouriot of August 22-23, 1868 was a brief crisis in Anglo-Chinese relations during the late Qing Dynasty. The crisis was fomented by the gentry of Yangzhou who opposed the presence of foreign Christian missionaries in the city, who claimed that they were legally residing under the provisions of the Convention of Peking. Threats against the missionaries were circulated by large character posters placed around the city. Rumors followed that the foreigners were stealing babies and killing them to make medicine.
The riot that resulted was an angry crowd of Chinese estimated at eight to ten thousand who assaulted the premises of the BritishChina Inland Mission in Yangzhou by looting, burning and attacking the missionaries led by Hudson Taylor. No one was killed, however several of the missionaries were injured as they were forced to flee for their lives.
As a result of the report of the riot, the British consul in Shanghai, Sir Walter Henry Medhurst took seventy Royal marines in a Man of war and steamed up the Yangtze River to Nanjing in a controversial show of force that eventually resulted in an official apology from the Chinese government under ViceroyZeng Guofan and financial restitution made to the C.I.M. as well as the restoration of the house that they had purchased in the city. Hudson Taylor and other Christian missionaries in China at that time were often accused of using gunboats to spread the gospel. However, none of the missionaries had requested or desired the military intervention[1].
There was an orphanage in Yangzhou operated by a French Roman Catholic where a number of infants had died of natural causes. However, this fueled the rumors that Chinese children were disappearing[2]. Marshall Broomhall later noted regarding the cause of the riot:
“
In regard to riots in China the long-standing enmity of the literati of China to all things foreign must be remembered as well as the fact that the Chinese people were at that period " in the point of superstition very much where we were in the sixteenth century." Should the literati stir up the passions of the people by playing upon their superstitious fears, few officials had the moral courage as well as the ability to keep the peace for long, for their tenure of office was largely dependent upon the goodwill of the scholarly class.
Du Halde tells of a book dated as early as 1624 which circulated the base and foolish charges of the foreigners kidnapping children, extracting their eyes, heart, and liver, etc., for medicine, and the Roman Catholic practice of extreme unction, and the habit of closing the eyes of the dead, may have given some basis for part of such a belief. In 1862 a book entitled Death-blow to Corrupt Doctrine a book republished at the time of the Tientsin massacre in 1870 brought forward similar charges. In 1866 Mr. S. R. Grundy, the Times correspondent in China, called attention to a proclamation extensively circulated in Hunan and the adjacent provinces. Clause VII. of this Proclamation read : " When a (Chinese) member of their religion (Roman Catholic) is on his death-bed, several of his co-religionists come and exclude his relatives while they offer prayers for his salvation. The fact is, while the breath is still in his body they scoop out his eyes and cut out his heart ; which they use in their country in the manufacture of false silver."[3]
”
About two weeks before the riot, a meeting of the literati was held in the city, and soon anonymous handbills were posted up through out the city containing many absurd and foul charges. These handbills were followed by large posters calling the foreigners " Brigands of the religion of Jesus," and stating that they scooped out the eyes of the dying and opened foundling hospitals in order that they might eat the children. The Prefect had already been warned of the impending trouble, but did not take any action.
All possible conciliatory measures were adopted by the missionaries. Handbills were circulated promising the opening of the mission premises for inspection as soon as the workers had repaired the unfinished walls and removed the scaffolding which would be dangerous to a crowd.
On their way down to Zhenjiang the missionaries passed the Assistant British Consul and the American Consul on their way up. The Consular Authorities proceeded to investigate the situation personally, and reported their findings directly to William Henry Medhurst, the British Consul at Shanghai. Mr. Medhurst made prompt demands for reparation. Proceeding with an escort to Yangzhou he demanded that the Prefect should accompany him to Nanjing that the case might be judged before the Viceroy. The Prefect begged to be allowed to go in his own boat and not as a prisoner, and this was agreed to upon his furnishing his written promise not to escape. This he readily gave, yet fled under cover of darkness.
Even so, Mr. Medhurst proceeded to Nanjing with the gunboat Rinaldo as escort. In the course of the negotiations, which promised to terminate satisfactorily, the captain of the gunboat took ill and left for Shanghai. With the withdrawal of the gunboat the aspect of affairs immediately changed, and Mr. Medhurst had to depart diplomatically at a loss. This failure led Sir Rutherford Alcock to authorize Consul Medhurst to renew his demands, this time backed by a naval squadron. The Viceroy Zeng Guofan speedily came to terms, and appointed two deputies to proceed to Yangzhou and hold an enquiry. A proclamation was thereupon issued which secured the reinstatement of the mission, compensation for damages to property, and moral status in the eyes of the people by stating that " British subjects possess the right to enter the land," and that " Local Authorities everywhere are to extend due protection."
The British Foreign Office sharply criticized Medhurst and Alcock for having used gunboats to extract concessions from the Nanjing Viceroy. This was contrary to the British policy of holding the central government of China - not local governments - responsible for enforcing the commercial treaties and the safety of foreign residents in China. The incident prompted foreign secretary Lord Clarendon to officially censure Medhurst and Alcock for the actions, and to reiterate the policy of the British government to seek redress from Beijing whenever foreigners were attacked.[4]
The British press reacted critically of the missionaries working in China and blamed them for causing a crisis in Sino-British relations. There were heated debated in the British Parliament about whether missionaries should be allowed to continue to live abroad in China away from the Treaty Ports.[5]
Hudson & Maria Taylor who founded the China Inland Mission
Maria Taylor was among those who defended the actions of the China Inland Mission in the wake of the riot. She wrote to a friend in England:
“
In the riot we asked the protection of the Chinese Mandarin. . . . After our lives were safe and we were in shelter, we asked no restitution, we desired no revenge. I think I may say with truthfulness that we took cheerfully the spoiling of our goods. But a resident at Chinkiang, up to that time a perfect stranger to most of us, and only slightly acquainted with my dear husband, wrote stirring accounts to the Shanghai papers (without our knowledge), and public feeling demanded that action, prompt and decisive should be taken by our authorities. And this was taken unsolicited by us.[6]
”
On November 18 the Taylors were reinstated in their house at Yangzhou by the British Consul and the Taotai from Shanghai, who had come up as the Viceroy’s deputy. For some time Yangchow became the home of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor despite the efforts of some high-placed officials to eject them. The Governor of Zhenjiang, however, personally purchased the mission premises from the anti-foreign landlord a high military official named Li.
The Tianjin Massacre (Chinese: 天津教案; Pinyin: Tiānjīn Jiào'àn) occurred in Tianjin in 1870. It is considered to be one of the archetypal and most important jiao'an or missionary cases of the late Qing Dynasty. The incident marked the end of the comparative cooperation between foreign powers and the Tongzhi court, and adversely affected the ongoing renegotiation of the Treaties of Tianjin of 1858.
In June 1870, kidnappings (or rumours thereof) spread throughout central China, with the blame frequently being attached to the Catholic missions. Local Catholic nuns had been active in bringing children into their orphanages, sometimes with the inducement of payment to their family. During 1870, the already high number of deaths at these orphanages increased through outbreaks of disease. On June 18, a kidnapper was arrested in Tianjin who claimed to have sold children to the janitor of the orphanage, which seriously raised tensions. Missionaries and foreign officials blamed local officials and gentry for stoking the tensions.
Chinese officials met with their French counterparts, who had assumed responsibility for the Catholic missions to China since the Arrow War, which led to some reduction in tensions. However, in a disputed sequenced of events on June 19, the French consul Fontanier forced his way into the yamen of the local magistrate. An angry crowd gathered, and the consul appears to have ordered his guards to fire on the magistrate. The incited crowd rioted, killing the consul and his advisor. Catholic institutions were attacked and ransacked, with 30-40 local converts and 21 foreigners killed.
French gunboats were sent to Tianjin. Reparations and reprisals were demanded by the French government. Chinese negotiations to mitigate the damage were led by the aging statesman Zeng Guofan. 16 Chinese were executed, though little evidence was adduced to their participation in the massacre.
A Chinese mission of apology under Imperial Commissioner Chung How later sailed for France, formally apologising to the provisional French Head of State Adolphe Thiers in November 1871
The Kucheng Massacre
Note - three Australian missionaries were killed in this uprising. Kucheng Massacre was a massacre of Western Christians that took place at Gutian, Fujian, China on August 1, 1895. At dawn of that day, Vegetarian rebels in Gutian (also known as "Kucheng" in Foochowese) made an attack upon Britishmissionaries who were then taking summer holidays at Gutian Huashan, killing eleven people and destroying two houses. Kucheng Massacre is considered one of the worst attacks against foreigners in China prior to the Boxer Movement in 1899-1901, the only comparable event in China's missonary history being the Tianjin Massacre in 1871[1].
Primary sources (newspaper reports, letters) on the massacre at Kucheng http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch_banister2006.pdf
Paper on the Kucheng Massacre, and Australia’s relation with China during the 19th C. http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch_ANU2006.pdf
An excerpt from the article follows: The response of British, American and Chinese officials to the Huashan Massacre of 1 August 1895 exemplifies the complex relationship between Imperial (Qing Dynasty) China and the rest of the 19th century world, including Australia through its colonial dependence upon Great Britain.1 The forcible entry of the Western powers into Asian trade networks created, over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, the first economic globalization by which Asia was aligned with the wider world. An extraordinary volume of information about China poured into Europe and North America during the 18th and 19th centuries influencing many aspects of European culture. The 19th century was not a happy period in Chinese national history and continues to influence relationships with the outside world. I must say frankly that the first introduction of international law in China from the western world in the late 19th century left the Chinese with little fond memories, as it was done through cannons and warships.2 Foreign commercial access, imposed by military force, facilitated Protestant Christian enterprises in which the ideals of Christendom were ‘marketed’ to the Chinese.3 Missionary work resulted in an ever-expanding popular Christian literature that helped shape the views of millions of ordinary people in Australasia, Europe and North America.4 Much of the missionary literature brought very negative views of the people and societies to whom the missionaries sought to bring Western enlightenment.
The relationship between Protestant missionaries in the field (with varied countries of origin, values, and beliefs),6 mission field committees in China, home committees in Europe and America and the governments and diplomats of missionary sending countries resulted in the accusation of ‘cultural imperialism’.7 Contemporary Chinese Christian writing is reappraising this representation of the contribution of foreign missionaries to modern Chinese Christianity.8 Cultural imperialism views Christian missions as imposing foreign values upon indigenous populations and ignores the fact that foreigners and Chinese at the time were well aware of the cultural dimension involved in evangelism.9 Missionaries were undeniably change agents given that their primary objective was to change lives and values but their actual numbers and their relative lack of conversions counsels against over-emphasizing their impact.10
Famous French political cartoon from the late 1890s. A pie represents "Chine" (French for China) and is being divided between caricatures of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, William II of Germany (who is squabbling with Queen Victoria over a borderland piece, whilst thrusting a knife into the pie to signify aggressive German intentions), Nicholas II of Russia, who is eyeing a particular piece, the FrenchMarianne (who is diplomatically shown as not participating in the carving, and is depicted as close to Nicholas II, as a reminder of the Franco-Russian Alliance), and the Meiji Emperor of Japan, carefully contemplating which pieces to take. A stereotypical Qing official throws up his hands to try and stop them, but is powerless.
Information relating to Christian missionaries in China during the 19th century.
- Link to an artilce which provides information on the attitude of European missionaries in China during the 19th century.
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch2005.pdfAn excerpt from the article:
Europeans in China, whether British, American, or Australian, remained Europeans. ‘Their attitudes towards the Chinese could be complex and contradictory, entangled . . . in the [foreigners] sense of superiority as well as their own cultural and gender identity.’ Although many adopted Chinese costume missionaries were well aware that they did not become Chinese simply by adopting outward Chinese customs. In the Treaty Ports, in particular, the foreign expatriate community encouraged the maintenance of European modes of conduct even if the morality of many business people left a good deal to be desired as far as the missionaries were concerned. All missionaries had to spend their first year learning the local Chinese dialect. It was a key task for the single women whose employment was centred on itinerating in the villages of inland China. Amy Oxley wrote:Language: It is difficult and I do need the grace of God to learn it. I have a teacher, Ding Sing Ang,and I study between four and five hours a day. No one does more without in the end breaking down. It makes me feel very tired and not inclined for letter writing.The vast majority of the population of Fujian Province and virtually all the women and children had not seen foreigners before their villages were ‘invaded’ by missionaries. As Christian evangelistic activity spread throughout inland China after 1860 missionaries found rural society to be profoundlyconservative and in the case of women, almost totally uninformed about life beyond the confines of the local village.
- The Yangzhou riot of August 22-23, 1868 was a brief crisis in Anglo-Chinese relations during the late Qing Dynasty. The crisis was fomented by the gentry of Yangzhou who opposed the presence of foreign Christian missionaries in the city, who claimed that they were legally residing under the provisions of the Convention of Peking. Threats against the missionaries were circulated by large character posters placed around the city. Rumors followed that the foreigners were stealing babies and killing them to make medicine.
The riot that resulted was an angry crowd of Chinese estimated at eight to ten thousand who assaulted the premises of the British China Inland Mission in Yangzhou by looting, burning and attacking the missionaries led by Hudson Taylor. No one was killed, however several of the missionaries were injured as they were forced to flee for their lives.As a result of the report of the riot, the British consul in Shanghai, Sir Walter Henry Medhurst took seventy Royal marines in a Man of war and steamed up the Yangtze River to Nanjing in a controversial show of force that eventually resulted in an official apology from the Chinese government under Viceroy Zeng Guofan and financial restitution made to the C.I.M. as well as the restoration of the house that they had purchased in the city. Hudson Taylor and other Christian missionaries in China at that time were often accused of using gunboats to spread the gospel. However, none of the missionaries had requested or desired the military intervention[1].
The Yangzhou riot of August 22-23, 1868 was a brief crisis in Anglo-Chinese relations during the late Qing Dynasty. The crisis was fomented by the gentry of Yangzhou who opposed the presence of foreign Christian missionaries in the city, who claimed that they were legally residing under the provisions of the Convention of Peking. Threats against the missionaries were circulated by large character posters placed around the city. Rumors followed that the foreigners were stealing babies and killing them to make medicine.
The riot that resulted was an angry crowd of Chinese estimated at eight to ten thousand who assaulted the premises of the British China Inland Mission in Yangzhou by looting, burning and attacking the missionaries led by Hudson Taylor. No one was killed, however several of the missionaries were injured as they were forced to flee for their lives.
As a result of the report of the riot, the British consul in Shanghai, Sir Walter Henry Medhurst took seventy Royal marines in a Man of war and steamed up the Yangtze River to Nanjing in a controversial show of force that eventually resulted in an official apology from the Chinese government under Viceroy Zeng Guofan and financial restitution made to the C.I.M. as well as the restoration of the house that they had purchased in the city. Hudson Taylor and other Christian missionaries in China at that time were often accused of using gunboats to spread the gospel. However, none of the missionaries had requested or desired the military intervention[1].
There was an orphanage in Yangzhou operated by a French Roman Catholic where a number of infants had died of natural causes. However, this fueled the rumors that Chinese children were disappearing[2].
Marshall Broomhall later noted regarding the cause of the riot:
Du Halde tells of a book dated as early as 1624 which circulated the base and foolish charges of the foreigners kidnapping children, extracting their eyes, heart, and liver, etc., for medicine, and the Roman Catholic practice of extreme unction, and the habit of closing the eyes of the dead, may have given some basis for part of such a belief. In 1862 a book entitled Death-blow to Corrupt Doctrine a book republished at the time of the Tientsin massacre in 1870 brought forward similar charges. In 1866 Mr. S. R. Grundy, the Times correspondent in China, called attention to a proclamation extensively circulated in Hunan and the adjacent provinces. Clause VII. of this Proclamation read : " When a (Chinese) member of their religion (Roman Catholic) is on his death-bed, several of his co-religionists come and exclude his relatives while they offer prayers for his salvation. The fact is, while the breath is still in his body they scoop out his eyes and cut out his heart ; which they use in their country in the manufacture of false silver."[3]
All possible conciliatory measures were adopted by the missionaries. Handbills were circulated promising the opening of the mission premises for inspection as soon as the workers had repaired the unfinished walls and removed the scaffolding which would be dangerous to a crowd.
On their way down to Zhenjiang the missionaries passed the Assistant British Consul and the American Consul on their way up. The Consular Authorities proceeded to investigate the situation personally, and reported their findings directly to William Henry Medhurst, the British Consul at Shanghai. Mr. Medhurst made prompt demands for reparation. Proceeding with an escort to Yangzhou he demanded that the Prefect should accompany him to Nanjing that the case might be judged before the Viceroy. The Prefect begged to be allowed to go in his own boat and not as a prisoner, and this was agreed to upon his furnishing his written promise not to escape. This he readily gave, yet fled under cover of darkness.
Even so, Mr. Medhurst proceeded to Nanjing with the gunboat Rinaldo as escort. In the course of the negotiations, which promised to terminate satisfactorily, the captain of the gunboat took ill and left for Shanghai. With the withdrawal of the gunboat the aspect of affairs immediately changed, and Mr. Medhurst had to depart diplomatically at a loss. This failure led Sir Rutherford Alcock to authorize Consul Medhurst to renew his demands, this time backed by a naval squadron. The Viceroy Zeng Guofan speedily came to terms, and appointed two deputies to proceed to Yangzhou and hold an enquiry. A proclamation was thereupon issued which secured the reinstatement of the mission, compensation for damages to property, and moral status in the eyes of the people by stating that " British subjects possess the right to enter the land," and that " Local Authorities everywhere are to extend due protection."
The British Foreign Office sharply criticized Medhurst and Alcock for having used gunboats to extract concessions from the Nanjing Viceroy. This was contrary to the British policy of holding the central government of China - not local governments - responsible for enforcing the commercial treaties and the safety of foreign residents in China. The incident prompted foreign secretary Lord Clarendon to officially censure Medhurst and Alcock for the actions, and to reiterate the policy of the British government to seek redress from Beijing whenever foreigners were attacked.[4]
The British press reacted critically of the missionaries working in China and blamed them for causing a crisis in Sino-British relations. There were heated debated in the British Parliament about whether missionaries should be allowed to continue to live abroad in China away from the Treaty Ports.[5]
Hudson & Maria Taylor who founded the China Inland Mission
Maria Taylor was among those who defended the actions of the China Inland Mission in the wake of the riot. She wrote to a friend in England:
- The Tianjin Massacre (Chinese: 天津教案; Pinyin: Tiānjīn Jiào'àn) occurred in Tianjin in 1870. It is considered to be one of the archetypal and most important jiao'an or missionary cases of the late Qing Dynasty. The incident marked the end of the comparative cooperation between foreign powers and the Tongzhi court, and adversely affected the ongoing renegotiation of the Treaties of Tianjin of 1858.
In June 1870, kidnappings (or rumours thereof) spread throughout central China, with the blame frequently being attached to the Catholic missions. Local Catholic nuns had been active in bringing children into their orphanages, sometimes with the inducement of payment to their family. During 1870, the already high number of deaths at these orphanages increased through outbreaks of disease. On June 18, a kidnapper was arrested in Tianjin who claimed to have sold children to the janitor of the orphanage, which seriously raised tensions. Missionaries and foreign officials blamed local officials and gentry for stoking the tensions.Chinese officials met with their French counterparts, who had assumed responsibility for the Catholic missions to China since the Arrow War, which led to some reduction in tensions. However, in a disputed sequenced of events on June 19, the French consul Fontanier forced his way into the yamen of the local magistrate. An angry crowd gathered, and the consul appears to have ordered his guards to fire on the magistrate. The incited crowd rioted, killing the consul and his advisor. Catholic institutions were attacked and ransacked, with 30-40 local converts and 21 foreigners killed.
French gunboats were sent to Tianjin. Reparations and reprisals were demanded by the French government. Chinese negotiations to mitigate the damage were led by the aging statesman Zeng Guofan. 16 Chinese were executed, though little evidence was adduced to their participation in the massacre.
A Chinese mission of apology under Imperial Commissioner Chung How later sailed for France, formally apologising to the provisional French Head of State Adolphe Thiers in November 1871
- The Kucheng Massacre
Note - three Australian missionaries were killed in this uprising.Kucheng Massacre was a massacre of Western Christians that took place at Gutian, Fujian, China on August 1, 1895. At dawn of that day, Vegetarian rebels in Gutian (also known as "Kucheng" in Foochowese) made an attack upon British missionaries who were then taking summer holidays at Gutian Huashan, killing eleven people and destroying two houses. Kucheng Massacre is considered one of the worst attacks against foreigners in China prior to the Boxer Movement in 1899-1901, the only comparable event in China's missonary history being the Tianjin Massacre in 1871[1].
Primary sources (letters) on the Kucheng Massacre
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch_gregory.pdf
Primary sources (newspaper reports, letters) on the massacre at Kucheng
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch_banister2006.pdf
Paper on the Kucheng Massacre, and Australia’s relation with China during the 19th C.
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/welch_ANU2006.pdf
An excerpt from the article follows:
The response of British, American and Chinese officials to the Huashan Massacre of 1 August 1895 exemplifies the complex relationship between Imperial (Qing Dynasty) China and the rest of the 19th century world, including Australia through its colonial dependence upon Great Britain.1 The forcible entry of the Western powers into Asian trade networks created, over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, the first economic globalization by which Asia was aligned with the wider world. An extraordinary volume of information about China poured into Europe and North America during the 18th and 19th centuries influencing many aspects of European culture. The 19th century was not a happy period in Chinese national history and continues to influence relationships with the outside world. I must say frankly that the first introduction of international law in China from the western world in the late 19th century left the Chinese with little fond memories, as it was done through cannons and warships.2 Foreign commercial access, imposed by military force, facilitated Protestant Christian enterprises in which the ideals of Christendom were ‘marketed’ to the Chinese.3 Missionary work resulted in an ever-expanding popular Christian literature that helped shape the views of millions of ordinary people in Australasia, Europe and North America.4 Much of the missionary literature brought very negative views of the people and societies to whom the missionaries sought to bring Western enlightenment.
The relationship between Protestant missionaries in the field (with varied countries of origin, values, and beliefs),6 mission field committees in China, home committees in Europe and America and the governments and diplomats of missionary sending countries resulted in the accusation of ‘cultural imperialism’.7 Contemporary Chinese Christian writing is reappraising this representation of the contribution of foreign missionaries to modern Chinese Christianity.8 Cultural imperialism views Christian missions as imposing foreign values upon indigenous populations and ignores the fact that foreigners and Chinese at the time were well aware of the cultural dimension involved in evangelism.9 Missionaries were undeniably change agents given that their primary objective was to change lives and values but their actual numbers and their relative lack of conversions counsels against over-emphasizing their impact.10
European Trade with China
Documentary on 19th century European trade with China.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqbInNM-8k
Vintage Hong Kong postcard documentary
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=7397190402137134972&ei=TQQmSq3WLoucwgPFrKi3CQ&q=britain+china&hl=en
Early Portuguese traders, the Opium Wars.
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/modern.html
German colonialism in China
http://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/tsingtau/tsingtau_e.html
Early trade contact with Europe.
http://www.historyorb.com/asia/china_trade.shtml
Unequal Treaties - Chinese trading ports
http://www.geocities.com/treatyport01/TREATY01.html
Famous French political cartoon from the late 1890s. A pie represents "Chine" (French for China) and is being divided between caricatures of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, William II of Germany (who is squabbling with Queen Victoria over a borderland piece, whilst thrusting a knife into the pie to signify aggressive German intentions), Nicholas II of Russia, who is eyeing a particular piece, the French Marianne (who is diplomatically shown as not participating in the carving, and is depicted as close to Nicholas II, as a reminder of the Franco-Russian Alliance), and the Meiji Emperor of Japan, carefully contemplating which pieces to take. A stereotypical Qing official throws up his hands to try and stop them, but is powerless.